The original editor hasn't wanted to anymore since he died in 01852, 173 years ago, so that's not it. Surely what is happening is that people don't buy reference books much anymore, and the core market of farmers gets smaller every year.
> the core market of farmers gets smaller every year.
While the Farmer's Almanac doesn't go out of its way to prevent farmers from reading it or anything, it was really geared more towards suburbanites with an interest in things like gardening.
The Old Farmer's Almanac is more geared towards farmers, but there is no signs of it ending publication.
That's some serious forward thinking you've got going on with your date format there. I like it, I will be formatting all my years to 5 digits from now on.
OTOH, if it was just a typo - keep it to yourself, I don't wanna know. I'm all in - 5 digit years is a thing now.
> I like it, I will be formatting all my years to 5 digits from now on.
Please don't, it's highly irritating and usually just serves as a way to get people to discuss the leading zero rather than the subject they were really interested in in the first place. Leading zeros aren't a thing for a reason. It's about as useful as expressing the temperature in Kelvin.
Well said. Five-digit years are the Shadow the Hedgehog of rationalism. But he successfully derailed the thread and took the spotlight for himself, so... mission accomplished, I guess.
If they aren't a thing, why are we talking about them? Clearly they're a thing. And not even an obscure thing. If you've ever used commonly used representations like ZIP codes, bank account numbers, or serial numbers you'll no doubt have encountered it before. And that even goes for dates. ISO 8601, for example, requires leading zeros, including for the year component. "1" is not considered a valid year under that standard. It must be represented as "0001". Granted, ISO 8601 only requires a minimum of four characters to represent the year, but expecting at least five characters is conceptually just as valid.
The question asks why we're talking about something that is purportedly not a thing, not a quest to find further confirmation of it being a thing. Swing and a miss.
this thing where someone performs an in group practice (the leading zero behavior) to garner interest, and then another in group member appears to try to recruit the curious person who takes the bait, that y'all are doing?
it's creepy cult behavior, and the "Long Now" name and framing focused on the infinite isn't helping
RFC 2550 Section 3.1 has years from 0000 to 9999 as four digit but zero padded (so the fall of Rome was 0476). It then gets appropriately weird as it was published April 1, 1999.
> That's some serious forward thinking you've got going on with your date format there. I like it, I will be formatting all my years to 5 digits from now on.
I like this.
I wonder what other conventions we could break by being "forward-thinking" in this sense.
Past tense for all proper names ("America was...", "Google was..."), prices pegged to energy equivalents (bananas were priced at 10 kWh). Describing life on the North American Plate under Alpha Centauri aligned constellations...
Those are all awkward. The date thing is just smooth.
They assert "Stay tuned here for more updates" on X, suggesting a change in the way they are doing things rather than not doing it in any capacity anymore.
Everything banned in the US is still offered as soon as you step across a border, every gross visual warning mandated in those countries is not implemented in the US
It also could probably incentivize some unintended behaviors like clever financial engineering for short term stock gains at the cost of long term company health.
It could (??) also lead to comp going up for CEOs, as I imagine (??) they would demand more in stock because stock is riskier than cash.
there is a multi-pronged solution necessary that is both intertwined with insurers and also completely separate, so in that part I agree with you
the costs of services are arbitrary and need to be addressed before we can realistically deal with how any insurance pool works, in the US both parties have chiseled at this over the last decade - from getting prices more transparent, to attempting to have a large scale state negotiator - and this makes the conversation more palatable in gaining consensus
not close, but it's not as partisan as people think, despite the parallel existence of entrenched interests
what doesn't have consensus is a forced insurance pool that doesn't address the costs and has no ability to negotiate those costs (yes, this is partially due to the bill being gutted and a handicapped version being the only thing that passed) a deeper review and regulation of costs is the only thing that can help reach consensus
you can create a solo 401k that contains both a traditional and roth account, and roll over from your old employer's 401k to the traditional solo 401k, and do a conversion to the roth account
there are caveats to this, like always being attached to your solo 401k plan makes you ineligible for contributions to an IRA all the time, but you will be able to have rollovers into the IRAs, you also might decide that the solo 401k is a superior product to IRAs in every way
if you are not currently eligible to create a solo 401k, it is very easy to become eligible with a single dollar of 1099 or schedule C income the year you make it, and then it can exist in perpetuity
corroborate that with your licensed professionals. many gurus overlook the solo roth 401k mostly due to SEO and their audience of professionals that associate "401k" with "corporate employer thing", as opposed to something at parity with a traditional and roth IRA and expanded in capability
>if you are not currently eligible to create a solo 401k, it is very easy to become eligible with a single dollar of 1099 or schedule C income the year you make it, and then it can exist in perpetuity
No, your scenario is not "very easy". No custodian is going to handle a solo 401k based on one dollar of self employed income (and 1099-NECs aren't issued for such tiny amounts anyway). You are also overlooking the overhead of maintaining a 401k, such as plan updates every time related federal tax law changes, or the potential IRS reporting requirements, which can generate significant penalties if overlooked.
Merrill Lynch is usually good about that sort of thing. You're right that you wouldn't _only_ have the $1 401k, but they're fine having a few phantom accounts here and there to execute your financial strategies, and they'll stay on top of inconvenient legal changes for accounts they know about.
yeah, in the 10 years I've had one, the compliance is just a notice from the "document provider", and a 5500-EZ document annually. the bank, brokerage and crypto exchange accounts have no monthly/annual fees.
OP can also just use the solo 401k's roth balances as a temporary holding place to then pass through directly to the roth ira
The expanded investment options are worth it alone. And the years where there is self employment income, the expanded contribution limit up to doing my own $70,000 employer match saves literal years of contributions off my life.
It's literally 10x what the IRA contribution guys get, and most of them are barely able to even reach the IRA contribution max.
There are more tax deferral plans out there too, I'm willing to do that compliance.
This is really interesting. I'd considered a solo 401k at one point because a made a small amount of self-employment income in one year, but decided against it because it wasn't enough to be worth the hassle, and I didn't expect to keep having self-employment income. Now I wish I had gone through it, just so I'd have a place to roll over this old 401k. (Of course, now that I look, Vanguard doesn't do solo 401ks anymore and redirects to Ascensus, so might just be frying pan to fire anyway.)
> now that I look, Vanguard doesn't do solo 401ks anymore
Vanguard wouldn't need to know it was a solo 401k, they would just see a trust being signed up. There are other institutions that you can go into mutual funds or get similar exposure from who are more acclimated to solo 401k entities though.
a crypto liquidation results in more people going to Tether. "tethered" and "tethering" has been a verb in the crypto space for like 10 years
when market demand of tether is too great the value goes about $1.00 and the organization relies on arbitragers to deposit more to cause the minting of Tethers at $1.00 and selling it into the open market if the price is above $1.00 pushing the market rate back down to $1.00
Tethers in existence still continue to grow in that scenario
Its nearly 1:1 backing, most of the time, even a mass redemption event of Tethers will be orderly and fine. those crisis of confidence have alreay occurred, those stress tests have already happened, farfaaaar beyond what any bank would survive
all fiat collateralized stablecoins function the same way and there are many case studies, actual events that happened, that show it occurring orderly, uneventfully.
> when market demand of tether is too great the value goes about $1.00 and the organization relies on arbitragers to deposit more to cause the minting of Tethers at $1.00 and selling it into the open market if the price is above $1.00 pushing the market rate back down to $1.00
I'm not sure of this.
USDT can only be minted by tether [0] (line 406), hopefully when they acquire more treasuries.
I am not exactly sure where the price of USDT come from and I am pretty sure there is not only one. But I would guess it is an aggregate of the prices on exchanges.
The chainlink oracle [1] is probably the most authoritative one.
Nobody is “setting the price”, people trade. supply and demand. on many venues and contracts. the oracles just read from those (and sometimes the venues and contracts read from the oracles)
when tethers and trading at $1.04 or anything higher than $1.00
arbitrageurs wire money to their account at the Tether organization (bitfinex, otc services) to instruct the organization to mint Tether
the organization does everything necessary: takes the deposited money and buys US treasuries, mints the equivalent amount of Tethers and gives those tethers to the customer
The customer deposited $1 and received 1 tether. Some exchange venues have people rushing to buy 1 Tether for $1.04
Customer sells their tether to them and has some other form of crypto that they can try to get back into dollars and do it all over again, until flooding the market with Tether supply back to $1.00
this happens all day every day for a decade, more pronounced during panic selling periods
Would be pretty cool if it was that simple, that reason needs more representation and is how I run my entrepreneurial endeavors
reply